The Landlords on the Boycott of the Duma

Published:Proletary, No. 20, October 10 (September 27), 1905.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 9,

      pages323-326.Translated:The Late Abraham Fineberg and Julius KatzerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Theabridged minutes of the July Zemstvo Congress have been published in No. 76
ofOsvobozhdeniye. At present, when the question of the tactics towards
the State Duma is in the limelight, this material is most noteworthy, for it is
unique in showingjust howthe Zemstvo andOsvobozhdeniyepeople discussed the boycott issue. Certainly no one doubts that prior to the
conclusion of peace—the appearance of the Duma Act—they were, or
tried to appear, more revolutionary than they are at present. Nevertheless, the
nature of their arguments is most useful for a verification of our own appraisal
of the issue. After all, this is probably the first case in Russian political
history of concrete political steps being discussed simultaneously by both
opposition and revolutionary parties.

Itis quite natural that the bourgeois democrats were impelled to raise the
boycott issue not by the general programme of their struggle or by the
interests, of definite classes, but primarily by a vague feeling of
embarrassment, of shame at the contradictory and false position they have placed
themselves in. “How can we take part in something we have ourselves
condemned?” Mr. Shishkov asked. “Why, the people will think that we
endorse the scheme.” As you see, this liberal’s very first thought of the
boycott is linked with the question of the people—he feels instinctively
that to go into the Duma means wronging the people. He cannot get rid of gleams
of good intentions to march with the people. Mr. Rayevsky, another speaker, puts
the question on a more abstract plane: “We have always been steadfast in
principle, but in tactics we are entering into a compromise. It willturn out that we condemned the Bulygin scheme and yet are bent on becoming
representatives of the people. We shall not tread this slippery path.”
      This, of course, is a slight exaggeration on the part of Mr. Rayevsky, for
      theOsvobozhdeniyeLeaguehas never beensteadfast in
    principle. It is also incorrect to reduce the question to a bare
      repudiation of compromise: revolutionary Social-Democrats who
      have absorbed the
    spirit of Marxism would have told this speaker that it is ridiculous to
    absolutely reject compromises that are imposed by life itself, and that
    this is not the point at issue; what matters is a clear understanding and
    persistent pursuit of the aims of the struggle under all
      circumstances. However, we repeat, any materialistic presentation of the
    problem is basically alien to a bourgeois democrat. His doubts are merely a
    symptom of the deep split within the various strata of bourgeois democracy.

Mr.Rodichev, the phrase-monger who spoke after Mr. .Rayevsky, settled the
question very simply: “At one time we protested against the new Zemstvo
regulations, yet we entered the Zemstvos.... If we had the forces with which to
effect a boycott, we should declare one” (and is not this “lack of
forces”, gentlemen, due to the fact that the interests of the
property-owners are hostile to an unyielding struggle against the autocracy, and
hostile to the workers and peasants?).... “The first rule of military art
is to get away in time...” (believe it or not, that is what this knight of
liberalism from Tver actually said! And yet the liberals jeer at
Kuropatkin). “There will be a boycott if we, after entering the Duma, make
the following our first decision: ’We are leaving. This is not a genuine
representation, which you can no longer do without. Give us a real
representation!’”

That would be a real “boycott”. (Why, of course! To say “give
us” !—could anything be more “real” for a
Zemstvo Balalaikin?[1]No wonder they laughed so heartily when Mr. Golovin told
them how “easily he had dispelled” the Governor of Moscow’s
apprehensions lest the Zemstvo Congress declare itself a constituent assembly.)

Mr.Kolyubakin said: “The preceding speakers put the question as follows:
’Either go into the Bulygin Duma, or do nothing at all’” (Iskraputs
the question exactly like these ’preceding speakers” of the monarchist
bourgeoisie’s rightwing). “We must appeal to the people, who will be unanimously opposed to
the Bulygin Duma.... Appeal to the people, exercise freedom of speech and of
assembly in actual practice. But by entering a disreputable institution you are
disgracing yourselves. You will be in the minority there, and this minority will
disgrace itself in the eyes of the population.” In this speech one again senses
the link between the boycott idea and an appeal to the peasantry, the
significance of that idea as a turn away from the tsar and towards the people. And
with admirable candour, Mr. Shchepkin hastened to rejoin to Mr. Kolyubakin’s
speech, which he so thoroughly understood: “Never mind if we make a
mistake in the eyes of the people, if only we save the cause” (...the
cause of the bourgeoisie, would probably have been the workers’
interjection had they been present at this illustrious gathering). “I do
not dispute that we may soon have to tread the revolutionary path. But the draft
drawn up by the Bureau” (the draft resolution against a boycott)
“seeks to avoid this, since we are not revolutionary either by upbringing
or by inclination” (class upbringing, class inclination).

Mr.Shchepkin argues wisely! Better than the wholenew-Iskralot taken
together, he understands that the crux of the matter is not the choice of ways
and means, but the disparity of aims. It is necessary to “save the
cause” of law and order—that is what really matters. The
revolutionary path, which may lead to the victory of the workers and peasants,
cannot be risked.

Onthe other hand, that magniloquent windbag Mr. de Roberti talks exactly like anew-Iskraadherent: “What is to be done if, owing to its
inefficacy, the draft becomes law? An armed uprising?” (Come, come, Mr. Roberti,
how can one “link up an uprising with the Duma!”? What a pity you are not
acquainted with our Bund, which would have explained to you that the two cannot
be linked together.) “That, I believe, will undoubtedly come in due
time. But at present, resistance can either be merely passive, or passive while
always ready to become active.” (Oh, what a charming radical! He ought to borrow
the slogan “revolutionary self government” from the newIskra—what arias he could render on this theme, what
arias!...)... “to elect only those who would enter with the
determination to effect a revolutionat all costs”. That’s the kind of people we are! Well, were we wrong when
      we said that Parvus met a friend in such anOsvobozhdeniyeman,
    or that the newIskrahad risen to the bait of the
      high-flown phrases of the magniloquent landed proprietors?

[1]Balalaikin—a character in
Saltykov-Shchedrin’sModern Idyll, a
 liberal windbag, adventurer and liar.